From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58005)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1YGVSy-0003CA-Mx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:27:45 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1YGVSu-0000nT-Gc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:27:44 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37125)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1YGVSu-0000lx-8r
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:27:40 -0500
Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0SGRcBW030515
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
	verify=FAIL)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:27:39 -0500
Message-ID: <54C90DF8.30907@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:27:36 -0500
From: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1422387983-32153-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com>
	<1422387983-32153-23-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com>
	<54C822F3.4030900@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <54C822F3.4030900@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RESEND 22/50] blockdev: Check BB validity
 in drive-backup TA
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>, Jeff Cody <jcody@redhat.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>

On 2015-01-27 at 18:44, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/27/2015 12:45 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> In the drive-backup transaction, call blk_is_available() before using
>> blk_bs() to obtain the root BlockDriverState behind the BlockBackend.
> Took me a while to figure that TA meant transaction in the subject.
> Either spell it out, or just drop 'TA' entirely (the shorter subject
> would still make sense).  (21/50 as well).

Well, the subject would then be the same as for 26. drive-backup is 
something different than the drive-backup transaction.

I don't really have a problem with using longer subjects lines, but vim 
tells me not to. :-( However, vim hasn't passed the turing test, so if 
you tell me to I'll ignore it.

Max

>
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   blockdev.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
>